Total posts: 2,589
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
On that, I agree. I'd still like things to trace back to a single authority, but decentralization is entirely necessary and prudent. No one mod can be expected to handle everything, and so they need to be willing to hand tasks over to assistants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Perhaps, but then you could have wide variances in terms of rules between forums based on each mod's style. That inconsistency would be off-putting. I mean, I think it's just easier to have power centrally located. More unitary than federalist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
I agree with that. But it's not only a question of numbers, I think it's also (potentially) an issue of too many cooks in the kitchen. But yeah, you're 100% right about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Also, can we have the option to determine character limits for debates? I don't see that option, and I am not sure what the character limit is. I'd like to be able to choose that limit myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I'd also love being able to edit challenges that I've created before those challenges have been accepted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It'd be nice to be able to set parameters for who are opponent can be (e.g. they must have an ELO of at least 1,000). It would also be nice if we could set ELO minimums for judges, too.
Can we have rich text in the description section?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Why? Levels of mod seem to add unneeded oversight, and could actually be more bureaucratic than necessary. I think only two mods are necessary, tbh. If more than two are necessary, the chief mod should be empowered to appoint more later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
Bans should definitely be reserved for severe offenses (e.g. doxxing) or repeated, serious offenses over a long period of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
I agree that moderation should be relevantly hands-off, but also willing to step in when personal attacks are verging on harassment or are doing real damage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The site itself is a place intended to foster intellectual and rational debate. How do you propose a website that adjudicates from on high with no feasible recourse against, potential harmful to welfare as a whole, bans, not consequentially lose userbase growth and/or begin to shrink?
Moderation has always been done from on high. I hardly think you could make the argument that it was Max's policies towards pans and user punishments that drove DDO into decline.
And moderator decisions when exclusively their own, should not preclude any independent examination.
Then you're essentially having tiered moderating. None of that refutes the idea that a single examiner/mod is going to be making an unreviewable, final call at some point down the line. The extra bureaucracy only drags out the process and inhibits the expediency needed to address issues in realtime.
Reasonable checks being placed on potential abuses isnt foolish.
Sure, but what are reasonable checks? It doesn't seem like you and I disagree that there should be checks. Rather, we disagree on what those checks should be. Having two mods who need to come to a unanimous decision on perma-bans or long temp-bans prevents a single mod from acting capriciously. It is unlikely that both mods will make a willfully irresponsible call. More than that, such a system would require two sets of eyes to review the facts. This, effectively, acts as a second investigation and a second opinion, which is something you seem to want. This is the only check I really see as appropriate, excluding, of course, the fact that mods must remain accountable to site ownership, which I'll address below.
Unilateral Moderator Control fmpov is equally as absurd.
As I said previously: "That said, if a mod is clearly and egregiously abusing or misusing their authority, the site owner should be prepared to remove them from the position. But, the site owner must be careful not to remove a mod simply because they made an unpopular decision--the site owner must understand that a mod can only be removed if a pattern of severe, inexcusable, and ongoing abuses of mod power occur. Mostly, the mods should just be left alone to do their job. Some complaints, esp. after unpopular decisions, are inevitable, and we mustn't defrock a mod on such a tenuous justification." Plus, the site owner has an incentive to ensure semi-decent modding, so as not to chase away users, which, again, was a concern of yours.
But ultimately, just like Max and Juggle, mods are externally accountable to the site owner. They are internally accountable (i.e. they must have each other's respect). And, they are indirectly accountable to the usership, which exerts pressure on site ownership. Thus, the mods are not unaccountable, and not unilaterally empowered in the sense I think you mean it.
------
I'm not going to get into your other comments much, except to say that term limits are unworkable because--to be painfully blunt--there aren't enough trustworthy users to fill the role of mod. I'll also add, briefly, that popular elections for mods would be a disaster. Just look at how the presidential elections went, and then multiply that times ten. Moreover, by making mods answerable to voters, you incentivize the mods to pander to certain constituencies, which makes it unlikely they mod fairly once in power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I think a re-review would be a bit redundant, if only because the same mods that came to the first conclusion would be conducting the re-review, but, I mean, I guess if someone wants the mods to take a second look at their case, okay...as long as that's not up to the public to determine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
As I said in my earlier post:
I would suggest that for any individual to be perma-banned or temp-banned for more than 3 months, both mods would have to agree. For temp-bans of 3 months or less, I think it would be sufficient for the chief mod to approve them on his/her own.
I think this is probably the only "check" that would be appropriate, namely because the overrule process you talk about still runs into the same problems I identified above. For example, supposed I doxxed someone. Could the site overrule my ban, despite the egregious nature of my conduct? Presumably, you'd say "no," implying either that some offenses should be un-overruleable (and then we get into the thorny issues of which offenses are those) or that the final say really shouldn't rest in the hands of the community at-large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The problem with Trials is that they are likely to become kangaroo courts and/or popularity contests, rather than fair and reasoned assessments of the facts. If the site disliked a particular user, that user faces a greater risk of being banned than a well-liked one, even if they are guilty of the same offense. What's more, popularity contests are more likely to result in false guilty verdicts or wrongful acquittals because the verdict isn't being rendered primarily on the facts, but instead on other, social factors. This renders sites on sites like this, which have their factions and social animosities, highly unlikely to ever serve well the interests of justice and fairness.
To this line of reasoning, Smithers, in another thread where this had come up, responded with the following:
The health and interests of the community are best represented by the community themselves. If the person on the chopping block is a much loved member of the community and everyone wants them around, what's the point in banning them? We don't stand to gain anything from it.
This was my reply (with edits for concision):
The interests of fairness are best served by an impartial moderator who can make decisions separate from the community. Moderators rarely ban much-loved members. If a much-loved member is banned for some offense, it is most likely to be a non-trivial one, like doxxing or severely bullying. That is because even if a moderator is generally insulated from needing to curry favor with the community, if they stray too far away from what they community will tolerate, they will lose the legitimacy needed to do their job and face replacement by the site owner. A non-trivial offense should result in a banning, whether or not the community wants them banned, because of the real-life harms such inappropriate behavior could result in.
Trials are a total non-starter. They do not deserve serious consideration, and should not, under any circumstances, be implemented on this site or on DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I think that process is overly complicated.
The mods should be allowed to collect evidence, which must, of course, include given the member in question the opportunity to explain themselves or offer some sort of defense to the mods. But, there doesn't need to be trial. Once the mods have collected and weighed the evidence, they should make the decision for themselves. Max has always done that, and has always given people the opportunity to dispute allegations he's made against them, whether those defenses were made in public or in private. This process is fair, simple, and direct.
I absolutely oppose trials and petitions re: bans. Moderating should not be an exercise in democracy--contrary to popular belief. There are excellent reasons why should not put judicial verdicts to popular vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Oh. Duh. Thanks. Didn't immediately register "Rating" as "ELO."
I am still interested in what equation is being used to calculate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
We also need an ELO ranking, not just a win percentage. I'll talk to Max sometime to figure out what the precise ELO equation is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Also, thanks. Glad someone thought it was good after the time I spent writing it ;P
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
It might be helpful to have mods moderate a discussion on what the rules should be. Besides, the rules won't help us choose the mods. The mods should be chosen on their character. That said, it isn't particularly important in which order those things are done, so long as both are done relatively soon and relatively close together.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty much what Harder said at the top of the thread. Also +1 the thread-pinning thing.The forum moderator should be free to discipline members, including by issuing bans (temp and perma) and restraining orders. The mod should also be free to contrive new, reasonable methods of discipline when dealing with special cases (e.g. telling a fractious religion forum user not to post in the religion forum for a month, particularly if the user is only a problem in that forum).
The mod should have the right to delete posts, threads, debates, and votes. There should be voting standards that the mods can enforce; the ones currently in use on DDO are, in general, quite good (at least IMHO). There should be a clearly spelled out code of conduct that members should follow (see this thread, posts 7-9, for what I am talking about re: voting and conduct: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/). This code of conduct should constitute a powerful guideline for mods to follow.Bans of any kind should never be put to a user vote.
Trials on sites like these are simply kangaroo courts that act more like popularity contests than fair means of redressing grievances and determining appropriate courses of action. Similarly, once a mod is appointed, they should be shielded to some degree from the whims of users. We should not be able to vote mods in and out of modship, otherwise mods will make unfair or inappropriate rulings in order to curry favor with the voters in order to stay in office. That said, if a mod is clearly and egregiously abusing or misusing their authority, the site owner should be prepared to remove them from the position. But, the site owner must be careful not to remove a mod simply because they made an unpopular decision--the site owner must understand that a mod can only be removed if a pattern of severe, inexcusable, and ongoing abuses of mod power occur. Mostly, the mods should just be left alone to do their job. Some complaints, esp. after unpopular decisions, are inevitable, and we mustn't defrock a mod on such a tenuous justification.
Mods should be able to obtain new powers or clarify existing ones by going through a community discussion and consent process similar to the DERP process that Max has implemented previously. That being said, the aforementioned powers (disciplining members, deleting posts, threads, debates, and votes) should always be the mod or mods' exclusive purview and not subject to community review. Though, the rules on what constitutes "bannable/punishable content" should be up for debate within limits (obviously, even there there are lines there that should never be crossed, even if the community supports crossing them, e.g. mercilessly hounding someone with calls for them to commit suicide, serious and habitual personal attacks, etc.).
For a site like this, I would recommend a team of two mods, with one being the chief/senior mod. I would suggest that for any individual to be perma-banned or temp-banned for more than 3 months, both mods would have to agree. For temp-bans of 3 months or less, I think it would be sufficient for the chief mod to approve them on his/her own.
Created:
Posted in:
Pretty much what Harder said at the top of the thread. Also +1 the thread-pinning thing.
The forum moderator should be free to discipline members, including by issuing bans (temp and perma) and restraining orders. The mod should also be free to contrive new, reasonable methods of discipline when dealing with special cases (e.g. telling a fractious religion forum user not to post in the religion forum for a month, particularly if the user is only a problem in that forum).
The mod should have the right to delete posts, threads, debates, and votes. There should be voting standards that the mods can enforce; the ones currently in use on DDO are, in general, quite good (at least IMHO). There should be a clearly spelled out code of conduct that members should follow (see this thread, posts 7-9, for what I am talking about re: voting and conduct: http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/56116/). This code of conduct should constitute a powerful guideline for mods to follow.
Bans of any kind should never be put to a user vote. Trials on sites like these are simply kangaroo courts that act more like popularity contests than fair means of redressing grievances and determining appropriate courses of action.
Mods should be able to obtain new powers or clarify existing ones by going through a community discussion and consent process similar to the DERP process that Max has implemented previously. That being said, the aforementioned powers (disciplining members, deleting posts, threads, debates, and votes) should always be the mods exclusive purview and not subject to community review. Though, the rules on what constitutes "bannable content" should be up for debate within limits (obviously, even there are lines there that should never be crossed, even if the community supports crossing them, e.g. mercilessly hounding someone with calls for them to commit suicide, serious and habitual personal attacks, etc.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
I disagree. Let's be honest, not many people are super engaged with the site right now...because it's a mess. The reason we haven't seen Max and Whiteflame on the site is because they've been swamped by the sheer enormity of the task they had placed before them, namely, controlling the spam. What's more, there aren't many other alternatives the community at-large could embrace. Max is a kind of transcendental figure on DDO, the kind of consensus choice that gives his rulings legitimacy and weight. I'm not sure that many other such users exist. Whiteflame comes closest, though a few would disagree with his appointment to such a role vehemently. The problem is not finding someone willing, per se, or even someone competent (though those are not insubstantial hurdles to overcome). Rather, the problem is finding someone about whom no one could be perceived as reasonably objecting to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Yeah, that'd be fine. I get that modding isn't exactly a delight, and it's a massive time-suck. He has to make the call for what's going to be best for his life. But, I know he'd do a good job. Whiteflame, too. Maybe a few other people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
He'd obviously need to be asked, as I said. But, he is the kind of guy who prefers to moderate in the background.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I saw the .ru in the link you posted in the thread and was curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Airmax doesn't often talk publicly, but that doesn't mean he isn't working on moderating the site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
If you haven't named mods yet, I nominate Airmax1227 (on DDO), if he's willing, and Whiteflame (also on DDO). But he might not be able to handle double duty...
Btw...could you number the forum posts in a thread? So, like 1st post, 2nd post, etc. like it is on debate.org?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Awesome!
Also, when I clicked the little bell notification to see your reply, it didn't take me to your reply exactly, only to the thread. It'd be great if it took me to exactly the reply or post in question.
Created:
Posted in:
So, can someone tell me who the mods are (specifically, are they anyone I would know from DDO)? Also, who create this site. Seems nifty. Very much like DDO in many ways.
Still kind of heartbroken over the old site, but it's nice to have a place to relocate.
Created: